It is well known that the Varanasi court gave an important decision On May 12, 2022, regarding the Gyanvapi Masjid, while refusing to remove Advocate Commissioner Ajay Kumar Mishra, appointed for the survey of the mosque, as well as to conduct a survey of the basement of the Gyanvapi Masjid before May 17. has ordered.
Key points
1. Though, it is a popular belief that the Gyanvapi mosque was built in 1669 by the Mughal ruler Aurangzeb by demolishing the ancient Vishweshwar temple. It is noteworthy that in Saqib Khan's book 'Yasir Alamgiri', it is also mentioned that Aurangzeb had ordered the governor Abul Hasan to demolish the temple in 1669.
2. The Gyanvapi mosque case has been in court since 1991, when three people, including Pandit Somnath Vyas, descendants of the priests of the Kashi Vishwanath temple, filed a suit in the Varanasi civil judge's court, claiming that Aurangzeb had demolished the temple of Lord Vishweshwar and built it on the site. He built a mosque, so this land should be returned to him.
3. On the other hand, on August 18, 2021, 5 women had filed a petition in the Varanasi court regarding the demand for worship in the temple of Maa Shringar Gauri, accepting which the court set up a meeting to know the current status of the Shringar Gauri temple. Commission constituted.
4. In this context, the court had asked to submit the survey report by conducting videography of Shringar Gauri idol and Gyanvapi premises, for which an uproar has arisen, because questions were raised on the impartiality of the court commissioner appointed by the Muslim side for the survey. .
5. Hindu side's lawyer Vijay Shankar Rastogi has presented a map of the entire Gyanvapi complex as evidence in the court, which mentions the temples of Hindu deities all around after the entrance of the mosque, as well as the Vishweshwar temple, Gyankoop, Bade Nandi And the basement of Vyas family is mentioned. Controversy has arisen regarding the survey and videography of this basement.
6. On the other hand, the Muslim side says that no decision can be given on this dispute under the Dharmasthala Act of 1991.
7. Significantly, under Section 3 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, it is prohibited to convert a place of worship, even a section thereof, into a place of worship of a different religious sect or a different section of the same religious sect.
8. Section 4(2) of this Act states that all suits, appeals or other proceedings (pending up to 15th August, 1947) relating to change in the nature of a place of worship shall abate after the coming into force of this Act and such No fresh action can be taken on the cases.
9. However, if the change in the nature of the place of worship has taken place after the cut-off date of August 15, 1947 (after the Act came into force), then legal action can be initiated. The disputed site of Ayodhya (Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid) was exempted from this act.
10. In recent, the Supreme Court had ordered the preservation of the alleged Shivling found in the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi. This order is ending on 12 November. In such a situation, the Hindu side has reached the Supreme Court and demanded to carry forward the final order issued by the Supreme Court regarding the protection and security of the alleged Shivling found inside the mosque.
We appreciate you contacting us. Our support will get back in touch with you soon!
Have a great day!
Please note that your query will be processed only if we find it relevant. Rest all requests will be ignored. If you need help with the website, please login to your dashboard and connect to support